For the record, the rejection sensitivity feature of ADHD has been almost entirely generated and spread by one prominent psychiatrist, William Dodson, whose reputation is controversial (over-diagnosing and over-medicating while receiving enormous subsidies from pharmaceutical companies). Given how common rejection sensitivity is among literally anybody with any psychiatric disorder, I’m not convinced that this is a special ADHD thing.

this-sure-is-a-blog:

doomhamster:

star-anise:

doomhamster:

jumpingjacktrash:

the-real-seebs:

That’s sort of the impression I’ve gotten. Like, I don’t deny that I see it in a lot of ADHD people, but I also see it in a lot of others.

i do have it, but when i try to unpack it, it doesn’t go back to ADHD, it goes back to emotional abuse in school. and for me it’s very centered around situations that came up back then.

like, i have no problem with romantic rejection. when i’d ask someone out and get turned down, i was just disappointed a normal amount, and could still be friends with them, and could let it go. maybe after a weekend of ice cream and playing with the dog, if i really really liked them. so basically, a healthy and reasonable response to getting turned down for a date.

whereas when i bring a problem with peers to an authority or regulatory figure – or just someone i expected to be above it – and get told it’s my own fault, whether that’s true or not, my autonomic nervous system goes into Robot Rampage Destroy Everything Mode, and i lose the ability to think. emotional regulation is a thing of the past. it took until my 40′s to learn to not respond at all until the sirens stop going off. i do not expect to ever be able to respond gracefully in the moment.

not that that comes up a lot anymore, now that i don’t work outside the home. not a lot of instances for a house husband/writer to get smacked down by bosses. really, most of those situations i’m sensitive to just don’t come up much anymore.

tl;dr: yeah, you’re right, it’s not ADHD, it’s PTSD.

Hmmm. @star-anise, any thoughts? Seems like it could be pretty hard decoupling ADHD – or any kind of neurodivergence really – from PTSD in any case, given the kind of treatment disabled people usually go through… 

Yeeeeah I’ve got no firm answers. PTSD stemming from childhood, and ADHD, are really hard to untangle at present and I suspect it’ll only get moreso as new research comes in. It’s all kind of vague and interconnected and the word “implicated” starts to feel really useful here.

A lot of researchers are starting to point to ADHD itself as being intensely connected to poor environment and lack of parental attunement during ages 0-3 which prevents proper brain development in areas to do with reward and self-soothing (see Gabor Maté’s Scattered Minds for a summary) which people think means “everyone with ADHD was abused as a child” and is more like “kids with biological vulnerability to ADHD need special attention during infancy and their parents need extra support.”

And then having ADHD makes you more likely to be rejected as a child because of behavioural issues, and also less resilient when it happens, because of trouble with emotional regulation and self-soothing. So even if you don’t buy ADHD as a form of Developmental Trauma Disorder, ADHD in children creates an underlying predisposition for PTSD around social situations (and also academic environments).

So Dodson is seeing something real with the huge number of ADHD adults with rejection-sensitive dysphoria—but I would direly love to see more research on it as an independent phenomenon, and in people who don’t have ADHD. (And I’m about to dive into a bunch of literature on Avoidant Personality Disorder, so I might even find it!)

Thanks a lot! And yeah, the idea that “poor environment = abuse” is one I personally don’t like much. I mean, abuse did play a part in why my childhood was often tough – but even if my dad had been a perfect human being, there was just so much he and mom didn’t KNOW, that they couldn’t have known back when, that could’ve helped them provide a better environment for me.

Regarding ADHD and rejection sensitivity:

I’m glad that some people are finally recognizing this instead of automatically reblogging whatever Tumblr claims about the subject. Rejection sensitivity is extremely common, especially among psychiatric samples, and there’s no evidence that it’s uniquely related to ADHD. If anything, it’s related to anxiety, attachment disturbances, and past social experiences. To be clear, the concept originated with Karen Horney, a neo-Freudian, and had nothing whatsoever to do with ADHD. It’s also been examined by other well known attachment researchers (x).

It is true that ADHD (and executive dysfunction in general) can lead to trouble inhibiting reactions, calming oneself once upset, and switching emotional tracts. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that people with ADHD are more sensitive to rejection, merely that once they are upset, it’s harder to return to baseline, and they might be more likely to react in ways that they’ll later regret. Ruminating can also increase rejection sensitivity, but rumination is a common feature of anxiety and depression as well.

Regarding ADHD and PTSD:

It has been shown that not only do adults with ADHD have a higher rate of PTSD than controls, so do their relatives (x). One major reason for this may be that ADHD can increase children’s risk for experiencing trauma or other negative events due to impulsive actions, peer rejection, or neglect or maltreatment from parents who don’t know how to handle the child. Another major reason may be that individuals with ADHD (and executive dysfunction in general) often have difficulty regulating their emotions and lack healthy coping mechanisms for handling stress, increasing the impact of traumatic events. Finally, ADHD is often comorbid with disorders such as depression and anxiety, and these are also associated with a higher risk of PTSD (x).

That said, there are concerns that PTSD can be misdiagnosed as ADHD because of overlap in symptoms (e.g., dissociation can be confused for inattentiveness or hypervigilance for hyperactivity, and both ADHD and PTSD can involve increased emotional reactivity; x). As well, I want to make sure that it’s clear that ADHD is primarily not comorbid with PTSD. Lifetime prevalence of PTSD for individuals with ADHD is still “only” in the range of 10% (x) to 26% (x). That’s high, but it still means that the majority of individuals with ADHD will never meet the clinical criteria for PTSD.

quecksilvereyes:

neuroticgaymusings:

marigoldwitch:

Growing up my parents taught me that if you’re too sick to [insert responsibility here] then you’re too sick to [insert something that makes you happy here].

It took me a really long time to unlearn this. When I would get sick or have a “bad day” I would deprive myself of anything that made me happy. Watching movies, eating something I enjoyed, going for a walk, playing video games or just browsing online looking at funny cat videos. I wouldn’t let myself do these things because I was always told that if I’m too sick to go to work, or do homework, or go to school then I must be too sick to play Mortal Kombat or watch Unsolved Mysteries lol.

Whenever I wouldn’t feel good, which I later learned as an adult was due to sleep deprivation caused by my ADHD and depression (and of course the depression itself would cause me to feel like shit), my parents would tell me “if you’re not throwing up, then you’re not sick.” And when I would stay home from school (or even work in my later teen years) my parents would make sure that I didn’t have any “fun.” No TV, no movies, no games, no going outside, no arts and crafts, no books, no nothing. Just lay in bed and feel miserable.


I’m happy to say that I no longer do this to myself. Now when I’m having a bad day or I’m sick (cold, flu or whatever) I allow myself to do the things (within reason lol) that I actually love doing. If I’m not too sick to step outside for a few minutes then I’ll go for a walk. I’ll watch my favorite movies and if it’s a bad day or a cold (something that doesn’t hinder my appetite too much) I’ll eat my favorite foods. I don’t guilt trip myself anymore for having a “sick day.”

Just because you’re sick (whether physically, emotionally or mentally) doesn’t mean that you can’t do things you enjoy. You’re not any less sick because you watch TV. You’re not any less sick because you’re playing video games. 

Actually you SHOULD be doing these things when you’re not feeling good because they make you feel better. The better you feel, the faster your heal. 

Thank you! I needed to read this.

oh.

atlinmerrick:

blackmorgan:

Meet Honey Bee, The Rescued Blind Cat Who Loves Hiking

Meet Honey Bee, a blind cat from Fiji with a beautiful spirit and a
wonderful message of hope. Once upon a time Honey Bee lived at an animal
shelter called Animals Fiji, but today she happily lives with her 2
loving humans and 4 other cats all the way in Seattle. After
first adopting a blind cat, her owners likely didn’t know what to
expect, but turns out Honey Bee is just like any other cat with eyes.
Actually, Honey Bee is arguably WAY more incredible.

First and
foremost, unlike most scaredy cats this brave cat LOVES to go hiking. On
BoredPanda.com her owners write, “When we go hiking, we take her on our
shoulders or with a leash. People say they love dogs because you can
take them hiking, but Honey Bee loves hiking, too!”

Watch a lovely video of her hiking here.

I did not need my heart anyway. Here Honey Bee, you may have it. I hope it brings you even more joy than you already have. *happy*

theunitofcaring:

The Associated Press correspondent at the border just reported that we’ve started tear-gassing toddlers: 

The context is that asylum-seekers have been trapped in overstretched shelters in Mexico by a series of policy changes by the Trump administration and agreements between the Trump administration and the Mexican government, and today a group of refugees marched to the U.S. border to request dialogue + petition to be allowed to make the asylum claim that under standard interpretations of international law they are entirely entitled to make. The U.S. closed the border crossing. One woman with a tear-gassed three-year-old told reporters that the U.S. launched tear gas at the crowd when some refugees started trying to squeeze through the fence. No one crossed into the U.S. Thanks to the strong winds, migrants who weren’t near the fence were still choked by it. 

It would be legal and manageable under U.S. law to admit every one of these families, give their case for asylum a hearing in a court of law, and allow private charities and churches to provide for their safety and settlement in the U.S. pending those cases. The administration decided to make this their hill to die on instead, and has pushed for the use of lethal force. 

There’s a really dangerous and scary phenomenon where someone becomes convinced that any shred of humanity or decency they show will be a foot in the door, and that their only option is to keep buckling down, and to take all failures to get what they want as evidence they weren’t forceful enough. It’s the spiral of escalation that leads to choking toddlers with gas grenades and feeling like you’re in the right because if you granted these people a hearing some of them would stay in the country and that’d encourage more of them and there’s no way at all to reach any kind of equilibrium except vicious violence at the outset, made more vicious every time the current level of force fails to get everything you want from every single person out there. I’m scared that the forces at the border will keep escalating.

I don’t really know a good way to have institutional checks that go “our objective here is not that we win and they lose, no matter what; our objectives also include not being drawn into tear-gassing toddlers.” 

Don’t rush the border. It’s not complicated.

theunitofcaring:

Don’t tear gas toddlers. It’s not complicated.

Look, the entire thing I’m trying to communicate here is that if you’re willing to do serious harm to everyone within several hundred yards whenever anyone fails to comply with your rules, then you are guaranteed to end up constantly doing serious harm to tons of innocent people. Guaranteed. You can come up with a story about how it’s not your fault, it’s the fault of whoever stepped out of line, but you are the person who adopted a policy under which it was guaranteed that you’d do this, because ‘we’ll do serious harm to everyone in the vicinity whenever anyone disobeys us’ will, every single time, lead to tear-gassing toddlers. 

You will never successfully get a large mass of desperate people with no clear avenue to saving their lives to one hundred percent, uniformly, obey your rules. Therefore, any mercy that you’re only willing to offer under those conditions is meaningless, and you get no credit for it, and you are just a cruel tyrannical clusterfuck tear-gassing toddlers and telling yourself it’s okay since you’d hypothetically be merciful under conditions that could never possibly obtain in the real world.

Also, how the fuck could the toddlers have avoided this, exactly? Been born somewhere else? 

Commit to folding whenever anyone chooses to harm themselves due to your announced policies & guess what: people will immediately choose to do so. We have only 2 choices: have a totally open border, which *no one but a tiny fraction of people wants*, or enforce the border no matter how cute the attacking army chooses to make themselves. Since I’d rather have a country with high trust and functioning institutions, this is the choice. (Also, read Beggars in Spain (and the Sleepless were right.))

hier-und-dar:

theunitofcaring:

“We only have two options” is precisely the sort of false rationalizations of continuing to double down far past the point where that advances your goals that I’ve been talking about in the last several posts. No, we don’t only have two options. That’s why in the first post I mentioned that we could have allowed people to apply for asylum, considered their cases individually, and granted the asylum cases that were legitimate. That is obviously not ‘having a totally open border’. If you hate that option, we could also have arrested the handful of people trying to scale the fence, with the five thousand troops we’ve chosen to station at the border, instead of tear gassing the whole area. 

Anyone who says “our only options are a totally open border or infinite willingness to escalate whoever is in the way” is lying to justify atrocities, or else has not spent three minutes thinking about ways to protect a heavily guarded, fenced border against unarmed civilians without tear gassing children.

Also, “attacking army” is a flat out lie. The immigrants are regular people, unarmed, walking up to the border and not trying to hurt anyone.